Maybe instead of the star system, which may be open to interpretation at
first sight, an abbreviation or a specific word may be used to represent
its status?
Regards,
Wilfred
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of David Nickerson
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:10 AM
To: CellML Discussion List
Subject: Re: [cellml-discussion] curation status of
models in the repository
James Lawson wrote:
> David Nickerson wrote:
>> OK - now I'm really confused by all this talk of
stars and simulation
>> tools. Perhaps the key is to separate the model
curation status from
>> the simulation tools - i.e., to have a distinct
"Curation Level"
>> field at the top of the model page separate to the
current Download
>> options section. I think it is very import to ensure
there is a clear
>> distinction between model curation status and how
good or bad
>> particular simulation tools are in regard to a
specific model.
>>
>> I'm not sure that we want to get rid of the multiple
stars for
>> simulation tools, as defined by
>> http://www.cellml.org/repository-info/info. If
someone comes along
>> and wants to look into using a particular
"uncurated" model, it would
>> be a good starting point to know which tools can or
cannot at least
>> load the model even if it doesn't give the right answers.
>>
>
> Sure, but you only need a binary system to describe
that - it either
> loads or it doesn't, one star, either there or not.
More stars means
> confusion.
but there is a big difference between it loading and it
running...and then between it running and it giving the
right answers. There are issues to do with units
consistency, numerical integration, code generation,
etc...that mean the model may not run at all or may
give wildly incorrect results. This is why we came up
with the confidence levels for simulation tools as
described at http://www.cellml.org/repository-info/info
>> I'm a bit worried that you seem to be saying that by
default all
>> models will get one star and then that star has to
be manually
>> removed? seems the wrong way round to me.
>
> Hmm, I'd be worried if I was saying that too :) If
that's how it came
> across I didn't mean that. Let me put it this way "the three
> *possible* stars for each simulator will go, and be
replaced by one
> *possible* star." Is that clearer?
its more whether that one star is on or off by default?
> Okay, the idea is that:
> there are two sets of stars. One for curation, one
for the simulator.
> For curation, there are three possible stars, as
outlined here. For
> the simulator, there is one possible star, which is
given if the model
> loads in that simulator.
ok - its getting clearer :-)
I still think there is value in keeping the current
three levels of confidence for simulation tools.
>>> Currently, I think the biggest issue is with
getting models to
>>> produce the output that the original model
produced. I think
>>> sometimes the best we'll be able to do is ensure
that the model is
>>> mathematically equivalent to what is described by
the authors.
>> Sure, and then the model sits at level 1 curation
until someone comes
>> along to fix it up. There is nothing wrong with that.
>
> apart from people coming along and thinking that
because the models
> only get 1/3 they aren't curated well. If we're
having problems with
> our system how are we going to expect other people to
understand! :)
but they aren't curated well, thats why they are at
level 0 or level 1 curation? there isn't anything you
can do about that unless someone curates the model to a
higher level.
I think the issue might be in the particular graphical
representation of curation level that the repository is
currently using. Typically on the internet, anywhere
you see stars the more stars the better. While
technically true for the curation status of a model,
only have a curation level of 1 or 2 out of three is
not necessarily a bad thing.
Perhaps we need to come up with some other graphical
rendering? maybe a tabular format with curation levels
for the columns and tick marks in the appropriate column...
>> hopefully Tommy's design for moving the repository
forward will help
>> resolve the whole versions of variants and variants
of versions issue.
>>
>
> I think Matt needs to work on the naming convention
for this to be
> cleared up. This is an issue that keeps coming up.
I would expect the new design to have quite a different
naming convention, but until we see something...
_______________________________________________
cellml-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
_______________________________________________
cellml-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
